[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#50832: AMENDMENT] Clarify meaning of Essential: yes

On Wed, Dec 08, 1999 at 09:33:30AM -0500, Ben Collins wrote:
> > > > +            Since dpkg will not prevent upgrading of other packages
> > > > +            while an <tt>essential</tt> package is in an unconfigured
> > > > +            state, all <tt>essential</tt> must supply all their core
> > > > +            functionality even when unconfigured. If the package cannot
> > > > +            satisfy this requirement it should not be tagged as essential,
> > > > +            and any packages depending on this package should instead
> > > > +            have explicit dependency fields as appropriate.
> > > Sorry that I missed most of this, but...
> > > I think this will make the dependency chain even more complex. I agree
> > It doesn't actually do anything, it just documents existing caveats.
> Actually it enforces existing caveats. It just seems to be side stepping the
> real problem to me. Changing all the dependencies (removing essential status
> to force other packages to dep on it) just seems like policy juggling, and
> the actual problem is really more technical related.

Erm. But there *isn't* a problem.

The only `problem', is that it's not obvious what you ought to be
doing when you're working with Essential packages. As was seen when
Torsten applied my patch to bash and royally screwed it, because /bin/sh
disappeared between bash being unpacked and configured.

This doesn't imply any changes to the archive at all, beyond fixing bash.

The details and stuff are in the bug report against -policy, fwiw.


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG encrypted mail preferred.

 ``The thing is: trying to be too generic is EVIL. It's stupid, it 
        results in slower code, and it results in more bugs.''
                                        -- Linus Torvalds

Attachment: pgpSnIHXfMytH.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: